Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

John O Brien not guilty?

Options
13

Comments

  • Options
    #62
    JackieO
    Registered Users Posts: 334 ✭✭JackieO


    kaizersoze1980 wrote: »
    ah come off it will you.

    You'd send a man down for life based on evidence of his wife being caught kissing another man the night she went missing?
    You cold bastárd :pac:
    Who's to say her new lover didn't do it?
    Jaysus i woulnt like to have you in a jury if i was up for something! :eek:

    I think Dellboys point was that it gave the husband motive.

    I can't imagine too many men being happy to find their wife kissing another man in their home!


  • Options
    #63
    TheNog
    Registered Users Posts: 4,160 ✭✭✭TheNog


    kaizersoze1980 wrote: »
    the law of double jeapardy .

    as far as i know its a US law

    you cant be done for a crime youve already been acquitted for

    There was a film called Double Jeopardy in the US where a husband framed his wife his murder and she was convicted. After a few years in prison he was found and the wife was released from prison. She then went and murdered the husband and she couldn't be prosecuted. As it turns out the film was factually incorrect.


  • Options
    #64
    TerrorFirmer
    Closed Accounts Posts: 29,930 ✭✭✭✭TerrorFirmer


    JackieO wrote: »
    I think Dellboys point was that it gave the husband motive.

    I can't imagine too many men being happy to find their wife kissing another man in their home!

    Likewise if men murdered their spouses when they discovered infidelity, there'd be more trails then the state could cope with!

    I think it's a fair verdict. Fair enough, there's a chance it was him, but it's wrong to put someone down without being even remotely sure they actually did it in my opinion. It would be a terrible injustice.


  • Options
    #65
    CountingCrows
    Registered Users Posts: 1,830 ✭✭✭CountingCrows


    Verdict is in
    John O'Brien has been found not guilty of murdering his wife Meg Walsh by a Central Criminal Court jury.


  • Options
    #66
    FlutterinBantam
    Closed Accounts Posts: 14,576 ✭✭✭✭FlutterinBantam


    seamus wrote: »
    In this country, yes afaik, provided that the DPP can show some significant new evidence which changes the facts of the case that was previously presented.


    That is correct and has happened.

    Never thought he was going down thought on the basis of evidence presented.

    A person being found not guilty doesn't mean a person did not commit the crime.

    No reference to this case intended.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #67
    keen
    Closed Accounts Posts: 987 ✭✭✭keen


    CountingCrows wrote: »
    Verdict is in

    The verdict was in hours ago :S


  • Options
    #68
    Ardent
    Registered Users Posts: 5,282 ✭✭✭Ardent


    Imhof Tank wrote: »
    Well, the pojnt in the Joe O'Reilly case wasnt that his whereabout were different to what he first said, it was that he was shown to have been at the murder scene at the relevant time.

    O'Brien was discovered to have lied about his whereabouts too:
    http://www.independent.ie/national-news/accused-caught-on-cctv-at-quays-where-body-found-1354784.html

    Mind-boggling verdict, given the O'Reilly case.


  • Options
    #69
    godtabh
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 23,204 Mod ✭✭✭✭godtabh


    Ardent wrote: »

    Mind-boggling verdict, given the O'Reilly case.

    why would you think one would influence the other? Do you understand trial by your peers and how it works?


  • Options
    #70
    seamus
    Registered Users Posts: 68,317 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    Ardent wrote: »
    Mind-boggling verdict, given the O'Reilly case.
    The O'Reilly case is irrelevant, thankfully none of the jury seemed to be thinking of it. Just because one man murdered his wife, doesn't follow that another man must have.

    Being at the quays is clearly a bit suspect, but not all that surprising. They lived close to the river. If he was going somewhere to clear his head, the quays sound like as good a place as any. There's nothing to suggest that her body wasn't dumped 5 miles further upstream and ended up caught in something in the quays.

    I'm playing devil's advocate to a certain extent - but this is what our system is based upon. While he lied about his whereabouts, it's not all that surprising. If your wife has gone missing, the last thing you're going to tell an investigator is, "Well you see I caught her cheating on me last night, so I didn't really come home early today, in fact I was just cruising around the city a bit. When I got home, she was gone". Being at the quays is not evidence. It's coincidence.


  • Options
    #71
    Awesomo-4000
    Closed Accounts Posts: 62 ✭✭Awesomo-4000


    Dellboy2007 wrote: »
    Not saying that i would have convicted on this if i was in the jury but i would have thought others would.

    ah come off it will you.

    You'd send a man down for life based on evidence of his wife being caught kissing another man the night she went missing?
    You cold bastárd :pac:
    Who's to say her new lover didn't do it?
    Jaysus i woulnt like to have you in a jury if i was up for something!

    You obviously didn't read what he said. Have another go.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #72
    thelordofcheese
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,368 ✭✭✭thelordofcheese


    Ardent wrote: »
    Mind-boggling verdict, given the O'Reilly case.

    It's only mind-boggling if you've already decided he's guilty.


  • Options
    #73
    godtabh
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 23,204 Mod ✭✭✭✭godtabh


    thelordofcheese wrote: »
    It's only mind-boggling if you've already decided he's guilty.

    Thats a good point actually.


  • Options
    #74
    is_that_so
    Registered Users Posts: 32,136 ✭✭✭✭is_that_so


    Quigs Snr wrote: »
    Locals who would have known the couple, or even just the ex-wife will be fairly astonished and dissappointed with this verdict.

    I am sure there was a local or two where I grew up who would have had a less than salutary opinion of me and who would claim to know me well. "Locals" thrive on gossip and half-formed opinions and it grows legs faster than bacteria.

    As for the case, now that I've informed myself a wee bit I have a question.

    Did no-one see, in the prosecution of this case, that there was an awful lot of circumstantial evidence in conjunction with an awful lot of unknowns? Under the legal system I would suggest that "guilty beyond reasonable doubt" was always going to be tough.


  • Options
    #75
    Eoin
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators Posts: 21,238 CMod ✭✭✭✭Eoin


    is_that_so wrote: »
    Did no-one see, in the prosecution of this case, that there was an awful lot of circumstantial evidence in conjunction with an awful lot of unknowns? Under the legal system I would suggest that "guilty beyond reasonable doubt" was always going to be tough.

    I was listening to a solicitor talk to Matt Cooper this evening, and she made the point that circumstantial evidence should not be underestimated or considered weak. It just means that one has to draw an opinion from any number of facts.

    My understanding is that unless someone actually saw the deceased being killed, then any evidence could only be considered circumstantial (bar expert testimony I think).


  • Options
    #76
    ModeSkeletor
    Closed Accounts Posts: 126 ✭✭ModeSkeletor


    DesF wrote: »
    I'll take "US Laws not applicable in Ireland" for 400 please Alex.

    Don't knock him. Because I don't know about Ireland but in England the double jeopardy law was only abolished very recently (2006 I believe). Don't the Irish and English legal systems operate very similarly?


  • Options
    #77
    Capt'n Midnight
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 90,749 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight


    I love the way they describe the evidence as circumstantial.
    By definition in a murder case the victim can't give testimony like they can in assault cases, so there will a little less evidence in a murder case.


  • Options
    #78
    jimmycrackcorm
    Registered Users Posts: 14,329 ✭✭✭✭jimmycrackcorm


    Hands up all those who have two sets of keys for their car and then got another set especially when they cost a lot and it's not a simple manner of getting another one cut for a fiver?


  • Options
    #79
    ModeSkeletor
    Closed Accounts Posts: 126 ✭✭ModeSkeletor


    jimmycrackcorm wrote: »
    Hands up all those who have two sets of keys for their car and then got another set especially when they cost a lot and it's not a simple manner of getting another one cut for a fiver?

    There's a Motors forum you know :pac:


  • Options
    #80
    trishasaffron
    Registered Users Posts: 922 ✭✭✭trishasaffron


    early on in the case there was evidence from her employers that money had gone missing from the holiday fund she was respnsible for and that she had unknown to them booked a couple of major holidays in expensive locations for herself. Then this seemed to disappear - what was that all about?


  • Options
    #81
    Eoin
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators Posts: 21,238 CMod ✭✭✭✭Eoin


    Capt'n Midnight wrote: »
    I love the way they describe the evidence as circumstantial.
    By definition in a murder case the victim can't give testimony like they can in assault cases, so there will a little less evidence in a murder case.

    The testimony of someone witnessing the murder would not be circumstantial evidence.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #82
    slipss
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,025 ✭✭✭slipss


    12 jurours chosen at random, all of them after hearing all the evidence, not just the snippets the media chose to publish to make the case as sensational as possible, thought that it had not been proven he killed her, every last one of them. I'm going to give the bloke the benefit of the doubt and presume the jurours got it right. In which case I have huge amounts of sympathy for the poor chap, your wife is murdered, then you are dragged infront of a court and accused of being responsible, then the media do thier thing and the no smoke without fire brigade to thier thing and then you have to live with the suspicion hanging over you your whole life. Thats a tough fukking break.


  • Options
    #83
    ModeSkeletor
    Closed Accounts Posts: 126 ✭✭ModeSkeletor


    slipss wrote: »
    12 jurours chosen at random, all of them after hearing all the evidence, not just the snippets the media chose to publish to make the case as sensational as possible, thought that it had not been proven he killed her, every last one of them. I'm going to give the bloke the benefit of the doubt and presume the jurours got it right. In which case I have huge amounts of sympathy for the poor chap, your wife and the mother of your children is murdered, then you are dragged infront of a court and accused of being responsible, then the media do thier thing and the no smoke without fire brigade to thier thing and then you have to live with the fact that your daughter has to read this sh1t. Thats a tough fukking break.

    They have no kids together.


  • Options
    #84
    slipss
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,025 ✭✭✭slipss


    ModeSkeletor wrote: »
    They have no kids together.

    I see.


  • Options
    #85
    ModeSkeletor
    Closed Accounts Posts: 126 ✭✭ModeSkeletor


    I understand your point though but don't agree with it. In my opinion just because someone is proven innocent in a legal context does not mean they didn't commit the crime. Usually the most obvious explanation is the correct one. Usually.


  • Options
    #86
    Sully
    Moderators, Education Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators, Regional South East Moderators Posts: 24,056 Mod ✭✭✭✭Sully


    DoubleJoe7 wrote: »
    Not true. In this case the Gardaí didn't arrest O'Brien for months after the body was found. The clearly investigated the case and felt they had enough to charge him on it. Hardly "automatically in the frame."

    I thought he was arrested before, but was released without charge? They then continued their investigation and I recall news articles saying the guards were close to making an arrest. They ALWAYS seemed to put him in the frame in their articles, regardless of the fact he had not been charged.

    seamus wrote: »
    Being at the quays is clearly a bit suspect, but not all that surprising. They lived close to the river. If he was going somewhere to clear his head, the quays sound like as good a place as any. There's nothing to suggest that her body wasn't dumped 5 miles further upstream and ended up caught in something in the quays.

    Most estates in Waterford are near the Quays going by that logic :p He lived a considerable distance from the Quays (well, a bit of a walk anyway).
    I'm playing devil's advocate to a certain extent - but this is what our system is based upon. While he lied about his whereabouts, it's not all that surprising. If your wife has gone missing, the last thing you're going to tell an investigator is, "Well you see I caught her cheating on me last night, so I didn't really come home early today, in fact I was just cruising around the city a bit. When I got home, she was gone". Being at the quays is not evidence. It's coincidence.

    True but he kept liying, and this made it worse for him.
    trishasaffron wrote: »
    early on in the case there was evidence from her employers that money had gone missing from the holiday fund she was respnsible for and that she had unknown to them booked a couple of major holidays in expensive locations for herself. Then this seemed to disappear - what was that all about?

    I think that happened before and she paid it back? I cant remember the details, but I thought I heard this being discussed as common?


  • Options
    #87
    sdanseo
    Registered Users Posts: 9,233 ✭✭✭sdanseo


    caoibhin wrote: »
    Yeah, see i didn't think one could be convicted on circumstantial evidence but that shows what i know.

    No, you can't be convicted if there is reasonable doubt. He lied, meaning a lot of doubt was done away with in one go.

    Those who say this is a farce should emigrate to a dictatorship. The system has spoken.


  • Options
    #88
    Sully
    Moderators, Education Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators, Regional South East Moderators Posts: 24,056 Mod ✭✭✭✭Sully


    I see the judge wouldnt let a letter from Meg saying he treatended to kill her in as evidence. Pretty graphic letter, describing how he beat her up. John also called work last week and said he would be returning to work. All in todays Indo. Sad really.


  • Options
    #89
    Capt'n Midnight
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 90,749 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight


    ruskin wrote: »
    OJ Simpson was also found not guilty of murder
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O.J._Simpson
    a civil jury in Santa Monica, California unanimously found Simpson liable for the wrongful death of Ronald Goldman, battery against Ronald Goldman, and battery against Nicole Brown. The attorney for plaintiff Fred Goldman (father of Ronald Goldman) was Daniel Petrocelli. Simpson was ordered to pay $33,500,000 in damages.


  • Options
    #90
    Eoin
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators Posts: 21,238 CMod ✭✭✭✭Eoin


    Capt'n Midnight wrote: »
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O.J._Simpson

    That was a civil case, not a criminal one. Beyond reasonable doubt turns into "more likely than not".


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #91
    ferdi
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,598 ✭✭✭ferdi


    i was listening to george hook on newstalk on friday and he had a barrister on talking about the case. he said we do have double jeopardy in ireland. as the law stands, no matter what new evidence comes to light, john obrien can never be tried for this murder again.


Advertisement